Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Sarah Jaffe examines the "bad business fee" proposal which would require employers who pay wages below public assistance levels - receiving work while forcing the public to subsidize their employees' livelihood - to at least make up the difference:

As inequality has become a hot-button issue, the solutions on offer
tend to focus either on taxing the extremely wealthy or on raising
workers’ wages. What makes the bad business fee particularly attractive
is that it does both of those things. It makes the connection
conceptually between the low wages at the bottom of the work chain and
the outsized incomes at the top, and sets out both to punish companies
that keep wages low, and to create value out of that punishment for the
people struggling on low incomes.

In that way, the fee is win-win.
If companies seek to avoid it, they end up doing something just as good
for their employees, or even better. Martin says, “For me in
particular, the better part is my boss may be thinking, ‘Well, I should
just pay my employees better. I should just pay a living wage. I should
just give Cliff some benefits.’”

To Liz Ryan Murray, policy
director at NPA, the bad business fee bridges the issues of workers’
rights and taxpayers’ rights. Often conversations around public benefits
get mired down in arguments about deficits and the cost to the
taxpayer, ignoring the value of the programs to the people who depend on
them and rarely conceiving of “the taxpayer” as a low-wage worker
herself. But, Murray notes, on this issue there’s no way to split them
apart — the taxpayer and the worker have the same interest in seeing big
companies pay their fair share.

- And Truthout notes that corporate bureaucracy tends to be far more harmful than anything found in the public sector - as a similar tendency toward complexity is paired with both a lack of accountability, and a profit motive which can be at odds with any attempt to actually meet the the needs of customers:

If I had had a problem with a government bureaucracy, like the
Veterans Administration or the Social Security Administration, I could
have called my senator or my congressman and they would have given hell
to those agencies on behalf of me. I could lobby Congress to change the
way they do things, the way vets are today successfully lobbying for
changes in the VA.

But if I had stood outside of my cell phone company's headquarters
and protested, they could have had me arrested for trespassing.

That's the difference between government bureaucracies and corporate bureaucracies.

Government bureaucracies are ultimately answerable to "We the People"
and our elected representatives. It's called "the American system of
government."

Corporate bureaucracies, on the other hand, are ultimately only
answerable to their shareholders, who don't give a rat's patootie if the
company they own screws their customers because that means more money
in their pockets.

- Adrien Schless-Meier points out that grocery stores are among the worst offenders both in paying poverty-level wages, and relying on public subsidies for employees.

- Meanwhile, Jonathan Timm writes that employer orders not to talk about salaries tend to serve only to drive them down (while also preserving historical inequalities in the workplace). And that fits all too well with the apparent link between CEO pay disclosure and soaring executive salaries.

- Dr. Dawg discusses how the Cons are treating the CRA - like the bully pulpit that comes with power - as a tool to attack charities which dare to speak about issues which don't fit their political agenda. And the CP's list of charities facing audits seems to confirm that only progressive voices are being singled out for scrutiny.

- Finally, Daniel Tencer highlights the age-based wealth gap in Canada - as younger Canadians won't see the benefit of past increases in stock and housing values, but will instead face higher prices to try to save anything at all.